Zoll+v.+Eastern+Allamakee+Community

588 F.2d 246 Rose ZOLL, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. EASTERN ALLAMAKEE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Nos. 77-1982, 77-1946. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted June 13, 1978. Decided Dec. 7, 1978. Background: This case was about the non-renewal of a public school teacher's contract. Mrs. Rose Zoll brought suit against the Eastern Allamakee Community School District, claiming that she didn't get a new contract because of two letters she had written to a local newspaper expressing her opinion of the new principal. She claimed that it was her First Amendment rights. A jury verdict was in favor of Mrs. Zoll the district court ordered that the school board reinstate Mrs. Zoll and that the superintendent and elementary principal compensate her for back pay up to the date of trial and attorney's fees and expenses. The superintendent appealled the motion and was hoping to get the verdict over turned however Mrs. Zoll cross-appealled and won an extension in the back pay period and an increase in the attorney's fee award. The reasoning behind the courts decision is that the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. The plaintiff in this case, like all persons living under the protection of the Constitution, had the legal right at all times not to be deprived of her free speech rights. Mrs. Zoll was able to prover that her contract was not renewed because of the letters she had written. Therefor what the school district did was unconstitutional and had to reinstate Mrs.Zoll and award her back pay and attorney fees. Impact on teaching: As an educator we must be constantly aware of what we say and how we say it. There are alot of politics in any career you go into so you must choose your words and actions wisely. This case is a good example of abuse of power in retailition to something that a teacher did. Stand up for what you believe in just make sure you know your rights. kari Graves

Rose Zoll v.        Eastern Allamakee Community School District and its Board of Directors, Superintendent, and Elementary School Principal, individually and as a representative of the school district Argued June 13, 1978 Decided December 7, 1978 United States Court of Appeals __ Background __ Mrs. Zoll had been working for the Allamakee Community School District for fifteen years when her contract to teach school was not renewed. She believed that this was payback for two letters she had written to the editor of the local newspaper. She thought the focus of school was on athletics and not academics, particularly in the high school, and she showed her strong disapproval of the way in which the principal, managed the elementary school. Upon the return from summer vacation, she was called into his office for a confrontation about her public criticism of him. Later that year, the school board authored a policy for staff reduction as a matter of preparation if enrollment numbers decreased. The following year, the forecast indicated a decline, and put the plan into motion. The candidates for non-renewal were the first grade teachers, one of which was Mrs. Zoll, and they were be evaluated on a point system. This method allowed forty points for experience and training and twenty points each for the school board, the principal, and the superintendent. Mrs. Zoll got only fourteen points out of sixty from the board and administration, compared to the other two candidates that received fifty-six and fifty-eight. This suggests that the termination may have been an act of retribution. The new policy guaranteed that teachers laid off for staff reduction would be offered positions as they became available. Three positions came open for which Mrs. Zoll was qualified, and she was not called for any of them. __ Decision and Rationale  __ A jury in district court found the superintendent and the principal should reimburse Mrs. Zoll for loss of income up until the trial. The board was ordered to reinstate Mrs. Zoll when an appropriate position becomes available. Mrs. Zoll’s attorneys’ fees were to be paid at $5000 by the defendants. The defendants appealed on the grounds that proof of retaliatory action was not sufficient, and the instructions given to the jury were not valid. Mrs. Zoll appealed, asking that compensation run until a reinstatement offer is made and that the award for attorneys’ fees be reconsidered. The Appeals Court affirmed the decision against the superintendant and the principal and the order of reinstatement. The court declined Mrs. Zoll’s appeal regarding compensation, because the superintendant and the principal should not be responsible for future payment based on an offer that would be made by the board. The attorneys’ fees were to be recalculated by the district court. __ Implications  __ Authority figures should do all that is possible to remain objective, but this case shows that oftentimes, even with procedures in place, it is not achievable without outside assistance. __ Quiz Question   __ Essay: Discuss the following question in 150 words. If you in a position of authority how would you maintain your objectivity in a case that has already been publicized? Give three examples. Reviewed independently by Eileen Boyd